5.  The applicant was born in 1966. He is serving a life sentence without commutation in Lovech Prison.
6.  On 4 October 1993 the applicant was placed in pre‑trial detention in Burgas Prison.
7.  On 25 July 1995 the Burgas Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and robbery and sentenced him to death. On 30 May 1997 a three‑member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld his conviction and sentence. On 22 July 1998 a five‑member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s petition for review. Throughout that time the applicant remained in Burgas Prison.
8.  Following the abolition of the death penalty in December 1998, on 25 January 1999 the Vice‑President of the Republic commuted the applicant’s sentence to one of life imprisonment without commutation. On 8 July 1999 the Burgas Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s sentence was to be served under the so‑called “special regime” (see paragraph 41 below).
9.  On 15 July 1999, when the Burgas Regional Court’s order of 8 July 1999 became final, the applicant was transferred to Lovech Prison, where he remains. Since that date he has been placed in different cells for different periods of time, each time with two or three other inmates.
10.  The applicant alleged that because of his detention regime he had been subjected to isolation. He also alleged that his cell, which he shared with three other inmates, measured ten square metres. The inmates were allowed to go to the toilet and wash three times a day, for ten to fifteen minutes each time. During the rest of the time they had to relieve themselves in a plastic bucket as the cell was not equipped with toilet facilities or a sink.
11.  The applicant also alleged that the food served in the prison was of poor quality and that he had found insects and other objects in it.
12.  The witnesses heard in various proceedings for damages brought by the applicant, including inmates detained in the same prison (see paragraphs 20, 26 and 35 below) and kitchen staff, stated that during certain unidentified periods the applicant had had no access to newspapers or books, and had not been allowed to visit the prison chapel, go to concerts or attend rehabilitative courses. He had had no access to the prison canteen and his food had been served in his cell. One inmate stated that during a period of time there had been no fresh air or natural light in the applicant’s cell. The witnesses also corroborated the applicant’s allegations that he only had access to toilets and running water three times a day and had to use a plastic bucket the rest of the time. The kitchen staff stated that the food served in Lovech Prison met the applicable quality standards.
13.  On 21 April 2004 the applicant complained to the prison governor about the conditions of his detention. The governor replied that in view of the applicant’s regime of detention, constant access to the toilet facilities could not be provided but inmates were allowed access to the communal toilets several times a day. As for the dimensions of the cells and their being overcrowded, the governor admitted that this was a problem in all Bulgarian prisons and stated that the administration of Lovech Prison was trying to provide the recommended minimum living space to every detainee. He disputed the allegation that prison food was of poor quality.
14.  According to a report drawn up by the prison governor on 15 November 2009, the applicant was detained under the so‑called “special regime” (see paragraph 41 below). During most of the time that he had spent in Lovech Prison the applicant had been held in cell no. 18, which measured 4 by 3.15 metres and had two windows. At first inmates had had access to toilets and running water three and, after October 2005, four times a day, in accordance with a schedule drawn up by the governor. In the autumn of 2008 toilet facilities had been installed in all life prisoners’ cells and all window frames had been changed.
15.  The governor further stated, without specifying time periods, that the applicant had been entitled to go into the open air once a day, for one hour, and to visit the library and take part in literary and board‑game (chess and draughts) competitions. He had received an award in one such competition. According to the governor, the applicant had regular access to newspapers and magazines. He received food prepared in accordance with the applicable regulations and standards, as did all other prisoners. He had access to medical assistance, which he could receive in his cell or in the prison’s medical wing.
16.  The governor also stated that the applicant’s “special regime” had not yet been changed to a lighter one because of numerous breaches of prison discipline on his part.
17.  The applicant did not dispute those statements.
18.  The Court has not been provided with information as to the conditions of the applicant’s detention after the refurbishment of Lovech Prison in the autumn of 2008. Nor has the applicant provided information about the regime under which he was placed after November 2009.
19.  On 27 October 2004 the applicant brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice under section 1(1) of the State Liability for Damage Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act” – see paragraph 61 below). He sought 4,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (2,045.17 euros (EUR)) in damages in respect of the distress and humiliation resulting from the poor conditions of his detention in Lovech Prison between August 1999 and October 2004.
20.  The judges who dealt with the case visited the prison and inspected the cells in which the applicant had been held. They also heard witnesses, ordered expert reports and gathered other evidence.
21.  On 8 July 2005 the Lovech District Court partly allowed the claim. It found, by reference to this Court’s case‑law, that the failure to ensure that inmates had access to toilet facilities and running water amounted to inhuman treatment and was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and domestic law. It held that having to use a bucket for toilet needs, in a cell measuring about ten square metres, without sufficient ventilation and in the presence of others, diminished human dignity and posed a serious risk to health. The court went on to say that the applicant’s allegations that the food was of poor quality and did not meet the minimum standards were unsubstantiated as the food served in prison was prepared in compliance with the Ministry of Health requirements and portions were of the recommended size.
22.  In assessing the quantum of damages, the court noted that the applicant had failed to establish the extent to which he had been affected psychologically and the degree to which he had suffered morally as a result of the conditions of his detention. Ruling in equity, the court awarded the applicant BGN 280 (EUR 143.16) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for the period between August 1999 and October 2004, finding that the claim in relation to the period before August 1999 had become time‑barred. It applied section 10(2) of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 65 below) and ordered the applicant to pay BGN 158.80 (EUR 81.19) in court fees in respect of the part of his claim which it had dismissed.
23.  In a final judgment of 6 January 2006 the Lovech Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
24.  In above‑mentioned proceedings, the applicant acted together with a co‑claimant, Mr Plamen Radkov, who was detained in the same prison and for whom the outcome of the proceedings was similar. The courts examined the applicant’s and Mr Radkov’s claims jointly and the judgments rendered were in respect of both of them. In a judgment of 10 February 2011 this Court found breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the conditions of Mr Radkov’s detention in Lovech Prison between March 2000 and October 2004 and the lack of effective remedies in that respect (see Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 18382/05, §§ 45‑56, 10 February 2011).
25.  On 20 September 2004 the applicant brought another claim against the Ministry of Justice under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 61 below). He sought BGN 20,000 (EUR 10,225.84) in damages in respect of the anguish suffered as a result of his isolation between October 1993 and September 2004, initially as a prisoner on death row and then as a life prisoner under the “special regime”.
26.  The courts heard witnesses, one of whom had been detained in Burgas Prison and the others in Lovech Prison, and gathered other evidence.
27.  On 14 April 2005 the Lovech Regional Court dismissed the claim, finding, inter alia, that the “special regime” applied to the applicant had been prescribed by law and that the conditions of his detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.
28.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 14 November 2005 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s judgment. It found that the applicant had been kept in very strict isolation from October 1993 until September 2004, initially as a prisoner on death row and then under the “special regime” applicable to life prisoners. It also found that, during the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in Burgas Prison, his cell had had no toilet facilities but he had had free access to toilets outside the cell. Since 1999, when the applicant had been transferred to Lovech Prison, he had shared a cell with one or two inmates and had been allowed to use the toilet facilities three times a day; the rest of the time he had had to relieve himself in a bucket in the cell. The cell had had only one window, which had constantly remained closed, preventing the flow of fresh air. Furthermore, until 2001 the window had been covered with tin blinds, which had not allowed natural light into the cell. The applicant had not been given any newspapers. The court found that none of the above measures had been required under the legislation or regulations governing the execution of sentences; in particular, the requirement that life prisoners be kept under heightened supervision (see paragraph 41 below). Those conditions had been attributable to unlawful omissions of the prison administration, had amounted to ill‑treatment, and had caused the applicant harm.
29.  The court ordered the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant BGN 2,000 (EUR 1,022.58) in damages. In assessing the quantum of damages, the court noted that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention the applicant had endured, in particular, “negative feelings caused by the humiliation and debasement”. He had however failed to prove that those conditions had adversely affected his health.
30.  On appeal, in a final judgment of 7 August 2007 (реш. № 330 от 7 август 2007 г. по гр. д. № 92/2006 г., ВКС) the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.
31.  The courts ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of BGN 1,080 (EUR 552.20) in respect of the part of his claim which they had dismissed, in accordance with section 10(2) of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 65 below).
32.  On 15 October 2007 the applicant obtained a writ of execution and on 26 November 2007 requested payment.
33.  As he did not receive payment, on 9 April 2009 the applicant brought proceedings before the Sofia City Administrative Court, requesting the court to order the Ministry of Justice to pay the sums due under the writ of execution. At the time when the applicant filed his observations in the present case (25 March 2010) the proceedings were, following a dispute between various courts as to which was competent to deal with the case, still pending at first instance before the Sofia City Administrative Court.
34.  On 12 April 2006 the applicant brought a third claim under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 61 below). He sought BGN 10,500 (EUR 5,368.56) in damages in respect of the distress and humiliation resulting from the poor conditions of his detention in Lovech Prison between October 2004 and April 2006.
35.  The Sofia City Court heard witnesses and gathered other evidence.
36.  On 28 December 2007 the Sofia City Court found that during the period in question the applicant’s cells had not had toilet facilities or access to running water. The applicant had been allowed to go out of his cell and use such facilities three or four times a day, and had been required to use a bucket the rest of the time. The court found that that practice was in breach of domestic law and Article 3 of the Convention. It partly allowed the applicant’s claim, ordering the Ministry of Justice to pay him BGN 750 (EUR 383.47) in damages. It noted that applicant had been awarded damages in the two previous sets of proceedings in respect of the period preceding October 2004. In assessing the quantum of damages, the court took into account the duration of the period during which the applicant had lived in the conditions described above (one year and five months), the severity of the damage sustained, the applicant’s age and the lack of permanent or temporary damage to his health as a result of those conditions. Applying section 10(2) of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 65 below), the court ordered the applicant to pay BGN 390 (EUR 199.40) in court fees in respect of the part of his claim which had been dismissed.
37.  The applicant appealed.
38.  It appears that, on 9 April 2009, the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in so far as the award of damages was concerned. As the applicant has not submitted a copy of that judgment, it is not clear whether the court quashed the part of the judgment which concerned the court fees (see paragraphs 67‑69 below).
39.  In a decision of 6 December 2010 (опр. № 1189 от 6 декември 2010 г. по гр. д. № 905/2010 г., ВКС, III г. о.) the Supreme Court of Cassation refused leave to appeal on points of law and the Sofia Court of Appeal’s judgment of 9 April 2009 became final.